MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382139295 · doi:10.22374/cjgim.v18i1.655

Physician Practices in the Management of Myocardial Injury after Non-Cardiac Surgery: A Survey Study

2023· article· en· W4382139295 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Asher Selznick, Michael Ke Wang, Flávia K. Borges, David Conen, Steffen Blum, P.J. Devereaux, Maura Marcucci

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of General Internal Medicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
Canadian institutionsImpactPopulation Health Research InstituteMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAsymptomaticStatinTroponinInternal medicineTroponin IIntervention (counseling)CardiologyEmergency medicineMyocardial infarctionNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: To describe how physicians manage patients with myocardial injury (i.e., a troponin elevation of presumed ischemic origin) after non-cardiac surgery (MINS). Methods: Web-based survey to physicians distributed between December 2020 and September 2021, including a case scenario of asymptomatic MINS. Results: Of 103 respondents, 94% were practicing in Canada and 65% were general internists. 97% of respondents would order an ECG; following a normal ECG, 46% of would order an echocardiogram; following a normal echocardiogram, 42% would order myocardial perfusion imaging. Of the respondents, 91% and 90% would initiate ASA and a statin, respectively; 24%, 21%, and 7% would initiate an ACE inhibitor, a beta-blocker, and dabigatran, respectively. Most participants indicated that outpatient follow-up with a medicine specialist within 1–2 months (90%) and 1 year (68%) was appropriate. Conclusion: Respondents generally agreed that ASA and statins should be prescribed for MINS, and that post-discharge specialist follow-up is warranted. However, opinions regarding the role of cardiac imaging varied.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of General Internal MedicineSame topicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical OutcomesFrench-language works237,207